2004 PLP 469 (YLR)
KHURSHID AHMAD — Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 469 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Farrukh Latif, J |
| Parties | KHURSHID AHMAD — Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 469 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 469 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Farrukh Latif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 469 (YLR) (KHURSHID AHMAD — Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Naveed Hashmi for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Tahir Ijaz Joya for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Malik Muhammad Sharif for Respondents Nos.4 and 5.
- Date of hearing: 9th September, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
O. VI, R.17. & S. 115
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Amendment of plaint-- Application for amendment of plaint was accepted by Trial Court, but on filing revision against order of Trial Court, said order was set aside by the Appellate Court on solitary ground that such amendment was allowed by Trial Court at belated stage
Such fact was hardly a reasonable ground for setting aside order of Trial Court in revision because where an amendment was necessary to resolve the real controversy, it could be allowed at any stage including appellate stage-- Jurisdiction under O. VI, R.17; C. P. C, was discretionary and an improper exercise of discretion could be corrected in appeal if it was contrary to legal principle governing exercise of such discretion, but it was not open to interference in revision-- Interference of Appellate Court by way of revision with decision regarding a matter which was within the discretion of subordinate Court, in circumstances was not warranted
Constitutional petition, though not as a rule could not be maintained against revisional order High Court, however, in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction could interfere where order passed by subordinate Court suffered from jurisdictional defect or violated any provision of law or was in excess or abuse of jurisdiction
Order of Appellate Court was declared by High Court to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Mst. Ziadat v. Shahadat and others 1989 SCMR 1392; Noor Muhammad v. Sarwar Khan and 2 others 1985 SCMR 131; Dilshad v. ADJ, Multan and others 1986 SCMR 1396; Muhammad Zahoor and another v. Lal Muhammad and 2 others 1988 SCMR 322 and PLD 2001 SC 149 ref.
Judgment & Decree
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner had filled a snit against respondents Nos. 1 to 5 for declaration that he is owner and in possession of the suit-land and entries in the Revenue Record in respect of the same, are incorrect against facts and void. By way of consequential relief it was prayed that the respondents be perpetually restrained from interfering with his possession over the said land and be also restrained from alienating the same on the basis of the incorrect entries in the Revenue Record.
3. During the pendency of the suit a compromise was effected on the basis whereof the suit was decided whereby petitioner had relinquished his right as well as possession in respect of the suit-land in favour of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in lieu of a house and cash of Rs.75,000 given by the said respondents.
4. The said respondents later on disposed of the suit-land in favour of respondents Nos.4 and 5.
5. Respondent No.3 challenged the aforesaid compromise order in appeal which was accepted by District Judge, Rajanpur and the case was remanded vide judgment dated 4-1-1992.
6. Writ petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint alleging therein that they had parted with the possession of the suit-land under compromise which was allowed by the Court and since the same has been set aside- in appeal and the case has been remanded, they may be allowed to seek the relief of possession of the suit-land and be also allowed to assail the transfer of the said land in favour of respondents, by way of amendment.
7. The aforesaid application was accepted by the trial Court on 25-9-1999, however, on revision by respondents Nos.4 and 5, the aforesaid order of the trial Court was set aside by District Judge, Rajanpur vide judgment dated 21-12-1999.
8. In this Constitutional petition the aforesaid order of the District Judge is called in question on the ground that a well reasoned order of the trial Court was reversed in revision on the solitary ground that amendment was allowed at belated stage when no limitation is prescribed for seeking amendment which can be allowed even at the appellate stage.
9. Writ petition is opposed by learned counsel for the respondents on the ground that Constitutional petition against a revisional order passed in civil litigation is not maintainable. Reliance is placed on Mst. Ziadat v. Shahadat and others 1989 SCMR 1392; Noor Muhammad v. Sarwar Khan and 2 others 1985 SCMR 131 and Dilshad v. ADJ, Multan and others 1986 SCMR 1396.
10. Arguments heard. Writ petition, its annexures and the authorities referred by the learned counsel for the respondents perused.
11. It cannot be laid down as a rule that in no case the Constitutional petition can be maintained against the revisional order. Reference Muhammad Zahoor and another v. Lal Muhammad and 2 others 1988 SCMR
322. In PLD 2001 SC 149, it has been observed that High Court in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction can interfere where order passed by subordinate Court suffers from jurisdictional defect or violates any provision of law or is in excess or abuse of jurisdiction.
12. Order of the trial Court allowing amendment in the plaint was set aside in revisional jurisdiction on the solitary ground that amendment was allowed at a belated stage. It was hardly a reasonable or cogent ground for it is now well-settled that where an amendment is necessary to resolve the real controversy it may be allowed at any stage including the appellate stage.
13. Jurisdiction under rule 17, Order 6, C.P.C. is discretionary. An improper exercise of discretion may be corrected in appeal if it is contrary to the legal principles governing the exercise of such discretion but it is not open to interference in revision. .14. Interference of the learned Appellate Court by way of revision with decision regarding a matter which was within the discretion of the subordinate Court was therefor, not warranted. The impugned order is accordingly declared to have been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal effect. Writ petition accepted. H.B.T./K-261/L Petition accepted.